Month: March 2023

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 9 (2) – a casual or cavalier approach should not be taken in determining the age of the accused or convict on his plea of juvenility, but a decision against determination of juvenility ought not to be taken solely for the reason that offence involved is heinous or grave HELD Going by that certificate, his age at the time of commission of offence was 12 years and 6 months. Thus, he was a child/juvenile on the date of commission of offence for which he has been convicted

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY @APPLELLANT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph, Aniruddha Bose and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Criminal…

Classification of account as fraud – Borrowers have the right to be heard before classify their accounts as fraud – Principles of natural justice demand that the borrowers must be served a notice, given an opportunity to explain the conclusions of the forensic audit report, and be allowed to represent by the banks/ JLF before their account is classified as fraud under the Master Directions on Frauds

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and…

Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 – Rule 3A(2) – the submissions on behalf of the respondents – suppliers/transferers that as there is no sale or transfer of the goods and that they are not registered with the TST Act and therefore, the liability to pay the tax at 4% does not arise cannot be accepted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. CHANDAN DEB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ.…

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11A – HELD We do not accept the contention that recovery of excise duty cannot be made pursuant to an appeal filed after invoking the provisions of Section 35-E, if the timelimit provided in Section 11-A has expired. To so read the provisions, would be to render Section 35-E virtually ineffective, which would be impermissible

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI – 1 — Appellant Vs. M/S. MORARJEE GOKULDAS SPG. & WVG. CO. LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R.…

(CrPC) – Section 482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Family dispute — looking to the relationship between the appellants and the original complainant of son, grandson and the mother/grandmother – Criminal proceedings against the appellants would not be in the larger interest of the parties – Criminal proceedings quashed – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEMANTBHAI BALVANTBHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari,…

You missed

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.